That's just what Australia is set to do tomorrow, though, as a new pilot program will ban hundreds of mobile titles that have been "refused classification" in the country on platforms like Google Play. Starting July 1, those titles will be effectively banned in Australia, according to an ABC report.

The Australian government announced back in March that it was working with the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) in an attempt to rate the hundreds of thousands of games being added to digital storefronts. Under the IARC system, developers fill out a questionnaire detailing in-game content like violence, crime, sexuality, gambling, language, discrimination, controlled substances, "crude humor," and "scary elements." Those answers are then automatically converted into local age ratings using standards set by the individual ratings boards in participating regions, including Australia, the US, UK, Canada, Brazil, and much of Europe. IARC content ratings can be amended or changed based on player complaints after the fact.

Since announcing that test months ago, the Australian Classification Board said it has looked through a back catalog of over 150,000 games and "refused classification" for over 260 that are listed on the Australian Classification Board website. The Board said it would "audit a large number of classifications made by the IARC tool to ensure they reflect the Australian community’s expectations and standards. The Board also has the power to revoke classifications made by the IARC tool if it decides it would have given the game a different classification." After an initial 12-month test, the Australian government will decide if IARC's digital ratings should be made a permanent part of the Australian game classification system.

So far, Google Play and the Firefox Marketplace are the only major digital storefronts to support this IARC rating system, and the vast majority of games that have been refused classification thus far are from Google Play. The international organization says it expects Microsoft's Xbox Live, Nintendo's eShop, and Sony's PlayStation Store to join "at a later date." Apple, whose iOS apps are rated by an internal content rating program, is not part of the IARC system and doesn't seem affected by Australia's experiments with mobile game banning thus far.

Some odd choices

Further Reading

Though the Australian Classification Board said the IARC system is intended to "ensur[e] users, particularly parents, are better informed about what types of games are being played on mobile devices," the Classification Board site doesn't give any specific details for why any of the hundreds of mobile titles were refused classification. That's not a glaring omission for many of the selections; it's not too hard to guess why titles like Shroom Tycoon 2, 9mm simulator, Pharaoh Queen Cleopatra Slots, or Charming Cheerleader Girl ran afoul of the classification board's views on drugs, violence, gambling, and sexual content, respectively.

But there are some confusing inclusions on Australia's list of newly banned games. A series of Sherlock: Criminal Case investigation games are refused classification in Australia despite receiving E10+ ratings from the US Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Color-matching puzzle game Pinpoint, cutesy match-three title Pop Pet, and jigsaw game Japan Puzzle also make Australia's banned list despite receiving E ratings in the US.

Some other games that are now banned in Australia seem to have international IARC ratings out of step with the bulk of their content, at least on first glance. Simplistic tic-tac-toe game TicTacpinky receives an Adults Only rating in the US thanks entirely to "Crude Humor," according to its Google Play listing. Kids dress-up app Fairy Creator receives an M rating in the US for "suggestive themes," possibly because screenshots show the tiny fairies in bathing suit-style underwear before you start dressing them up. Animal Hunter 3D gets an AO rating in the US despite content that seems entirely similar to the T-rated Big Buck Hunter games (though we suppose it's possible there's a naked lady hidden somewhere in there). While these ratings don't carry the force of law outside of Australia, they're still a bit baffling.

While titles that are refused classification "cannot be sold, hired, advertised or legally imported in Australia," as the Classification Board puts it, there are limits to how well this scheme can be enforced in the world of digital distribution. Android users can sideload APKs of banned games found outside the Google Play store, and determined users can hack their phones to fake their location to access the store available to other regions.

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

this world is going to hell. they're trying to convince us that we can't think for ourselves. and if you look at facebook and other social media vehicles, with all the paranoid, judgmental, overly sensitive, politically correct twits, you might have to think they've already begun to succeed.

Its dumb when countries try to limit access to stuff like this. They could literally be making money off it. and anyone who can google worth a damn can access it with searches like this, and there isnt a gov in the world who can keep up with it. Too bad really, but they will learn, hopefully...

It occurs to me that for all the complaining about how brutal the US has gotten over the past decade or so, it's Britain and Australia that are rapidly becoming the most Nazi-esque, for this and other, related reasons. Uneducated bureaucrats deciding what individuals are and are not allowed to see? Seig heil!

You know, I moved to the US 16 years ago this month, and for a long time I thought it was a socially regressive country (I am probably still correct for some areas) in comparison to Australia (which is where I grew up). But the money was good, so I stayed...

Now I wake up to find myself living in a country where same sex marriage is legal (finally), recreational use of marijuana is becoming acceptable and regulated (in my state at least), and the President is talking seriously about climate change, pollution issues, etc etc.

You know, I moved to the US 16 years ago this month, and for a long time I thought it was a socially regressive country (I am probably still correct for some areas) in comparison to Australia (which is where I grew up). But the money was good, so I stayed...

Now I wake up to find myself living in a country where same sex marriage is legal (finally), recreational use of marijuana is becoming acceptable and regulated (in my state at least), and the President is talking seriously about climate change, pollution issues, etc etc.

I sort of expected/understood the rest of the categories, but gambling apps are not allowed? I'm assuming we're not even talking real money gambling with its issues. So obvious question - do they allow poker games?

So... what's up with Australia? I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity as this seems to have just came out of nowhere. Did something relevant happen recently that prompted this? I've heard of some games being banned from Australia before, and the guy who does Zero Punctuation show mentioned difficulties in reviewing certain games due to previous bans. However, I didn't think they would kick it up a notch like this.

Holy crap, paper doll games are banned as sexually suggestive. I think a good long look at the members of the ratings committee are in order, one might have a huge collection of paper doll crafting books at home....

It occurs to me that for all the complaining about how brutal the US has gotten over the past decade or so, it's Britain and Australia that are rapidly becoming the most Nazi-esque, for this and other, related reasons. Uneducated bureaucrats deciding what individuals are and are not allowed to see? Seig heil!

Rating systems are fine to warn people of the content they are exposing themselves and their kids to, but using rating systems to ban content is absolutely ridiculous. There are plenty of mature adults that don't need nannies to tell them what is appropriate.

This is leading to de facto censorship. If every platform adopts these cetralized rules to refuse content, they also hinder culture and the spread of ideas. Australia goes even further to make it plain state censorship.

And there is the sheer hypocrisy of it. Violent movies are celebrated while violent games are vilified, sexuality is treated as a boogeyman even though it's a normal part of every healthy human life. And none of this is going to prevent children to being exposed to inappropriate content if the parents are not doing the parenting.

Rating systems are fine to warn people of the content they are exposing themselves and their kids to, but using rating systems to ban content is absolutely ridiculous. There are plenty of mature adults that don't need nannies to tell them what is appropriate.

This is leading to de facto censorship. If every platform adopts these cetralized rules to refuse content, they also hinder culture and the spread of ideas. Australia goes even further to make it plain state censorship.

And there is the sheer hypocrisy of it. Violent movies are celebrated while violent games are vilified, sexuality is treated as a boogeyman even though it's a normal part of every healthy human life. And none of this is going to prevent children to being exposed to inappropriate content if the parents are not doing the parenting.

It's not de facto censorship. It's de jure censorship and it's not just video games. They have recently banned books (euthanasia is a huge no-no subject), movies, and so forth in Australia as well. There is no protected freedom of speech in the country.

[Edit: I'm just going to throw in here a disclaimer that this is my understanding of how we came to have the current government in Australia, and is based on my viewing of news reports and reading the ABC website from afar. So I have likely made some errors of fact or omission. It is also worth noting that there is a long and storied history of banning books and other items of culture in Australia that far predates the current game censorship push. As someone says above, at times Australia can be quite the nanny state.]

So... what's up with Australia? I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity as this seems to have just came out of nowhere. Did something relevant happen recently that prompted this? I've heard of some games being banned from Australia before, and the guy who does Zero Punctuation show mentioned difficulties in reviewing certain games due to previous bans. However, I didn't think they would kick it up a notch like this.

Game control/censorship has been a big deal in Australia for quite some time. For a while the federal communications minister (who had responsibility for internet censorship, broadband policy, and some other things that we hold dear) was a socially conservative, right-wing member of the Labor party called Stephen Conroy. Much like religious, socially conservative politicians everywhere, he seemed to think that it was very important that he got in to other peoples business as much as possible. How he came to be in that position I don't really understand, but it was probably a result of Labor party factional deals when it came to the replacement of one Prime Minister (Rudd) with another (Gillard).

<understatement> The replacement of Rudd with Gillard was handled poorly. </understatement>

Rudd went on to be a giant pain in the government's ass, and proceeded to make the environment for governance in the country so toxic, that in the end the electorate threw out Gillard's government and replaced them with the opposition of the day when the next Federal election fell due. The opposition of the time, and current government, is much more conservative, and it features a lot of people with markedly regressive social policies (See Tony Abbott).

Right now I blame Rudd for being a total prick after losing the leadership ballot, destroying an effective and democratically elected government, and making the "left-leaning" party of Australia so toxic that the Liberals were handed the government. As some one from the north side of Brisbane, I profoundly apologise to the country as a whole.

I find it absurd that Refused Classification is still a thing in Australia after they introduced the adults rating for games. Seriously, how can something be above the adult rating?

They didn't tell you about the Elder rating. Of course, only the Elders can know about it lest terrible things will happen. The Elders are the guardians of the secrets the keep your fragile sanity intact.

this world is going to hell. they're trying to convince us that we can't think for ourselves. and if you look at facebook and other social media vehicles, with all the paranoid, judgmental, overly sensitive, politically correct twits, you might have to think they've already begun to succeed.

There are already a ton of words and concepts and ideas that would be downvoted into oblivion by US readers, right now, right here, on this board, that would have been perfectly acceptable to use and say 30 years ago - in fact would have been considered mainstream thought. Many of those same downvoters would not be hard pressed to accept laws against such bad thoughts and words being coded into law with attendant harsh penalties.

I know who is behind it what is going on, and why they are doing it, and HOW they are doing it, but I can't say that here either, because it's not mentionable today - anyone uttering such negative thoughts could lose their job, life friends, everything.

The international organization says it expects Microsoft's Xbox Live, Nintendo's eShop, and Sony's PlayStation Store to join "at a later date."

Why would they join when the only possible outcome is that some of their games will be banned? I don't see any possible advantage to participating.

When it becomes a choice between banning some games or banning all of them, then it becomes an advantage. That is the future for a system like this, "get on board or we won't let you sell anything here".

The international organization says it expects Microsoft's Xbox Live, Nintendo's eShop, and Sony's PlayStation Store to join "at a later date."

Why would they join when the only possible outcome is that some of their games will be banned? I don't see any possible advantage to participating.

Because it's expensive to do it yourself.

Apple is the only company that does it, and they spend billions of dollars per year running the app store (how much of that is spent checking the content of games is anybody's guess, but it's got to be a lot of money).

The international organization says it expects Microsoft's Xbox Live, Nintendo's eShop, and Sony's PlayStation Store to join "at a later date."

Why would they join when the only possible outcome is that some of their games will be banned? I don't see any possible advantage to participating.

When it becomes a choice between banning some games or banning all of them, then it becomes an advantage. That is the future for a system like this, "get on board or we won't let you sell anything here".

That will only get people to find ways to bypass it. There is way too many people on those platforms that are more dedicated than appstore customers and I doubt they will just let them be taken like that.

On the flipside, if powerhouses like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft join, they could pressure the rest to fit to their standards;

I find it absurd that Refused Classification is still a thing in Australia after they introduced the adults rating for games. Seriously, how can something be above the adult rating?

Jokes about a Mature Adult 65+ rating aside, the real answer is that the Australian government has decreed that there are some elements which, based on Aussie cultural standards, are simply unsuitable for anyone of any age. The article includes an example of a game that was apparently refused classification because of an implied rape in the storyline. So I'd guess that rape is one of those elements the Australian government has decreed to be unacceptable in games, regardless of the age of the player, period.

Now, whether a government should be in the business of making and enforcing such decisions for their people is a legitimate question, and one upon which reasonable people can disagree. But the Australian government has made their position on that question clear, in a wide variety of ways, and the Aussie people by and large seem to accept it. So as an American, while I personally dislike what I see as "nanny state" policies, I think I'll reserve my outrage and energy for problems closer to home.

What I don't fully understand, is this a single international classification system or does it allow for local variations in what is considered acceptable?

For instance, a US classification would probably allow depicting a woman's body being torn to shreds using rusty meat hooks as long as no nipple is visible in the process (age 6+). A European classification would have no issue with sex as long as no slapping takes place in the process (age 5+).

I find it absurd that Refused Classification is still a thing in Australia after they introduced the adults rating for games. Seriously, how can something be above the adult rating?

To make a serious answer to that : it's not "above adult rating", it's "banned".

Even if Australia is an extreme case, I'm pretty sure many countries (most ?) have a list of subjects that are absolutely forbidden. Easy examples would be anything that promotes hate crimes, terrorism or pedophilia. Any entertainment / art form that would do that is liable to be immediately censored in many countries.

It's the age-old debate of "Freedom of Speech" vs "Do not let people promote things that are harmful to society". Each approach has some arguments for and against (hate speech is bad, but so is censorship), so there is no definitive answer. In Western countries, USA tend to rely on the first approach whereas European countries tend to use the other one.

To make a serious answer to that : it's not "above adult rating", it's "banned".

Even if Australia is an extreme case, I'm pretty sure many countries (most ?) have a list of subjects that are absolutely forbidden. Easy examples would be anything that promotes hate crimes, terrorism or pedophilia. Any entertainment / art form that would do that is liable to be immediately censored in many countries.

It's the age-old debate of "Freedom of Speech" vs "Do not let people promote things that are harmful to society". Each approach has some arguments for and against (hate speech is bad, but so is censorship), so there is no definitive answer. In Western countries, USA tend to rely on the first approach whereas European countries tend to use the other one.

There are games where you can play as a terrorist in the US. Look at Call of Duty, specifically the murder everyone in an airport scene. Games have also been made that promote hate crimes that aren't banned. Pedophilia is about the only example i can't think of a game for, but some of those J-date games portray some very young looking models and those aren't banned either.

The problem I have with this, as someone not being from Australia, is that it shows to the world that you (As a government, not it's citizens necessarily) don't respect the people from whom you as a government derive your power. And that transcends simple acts of video game censorship.

I find it absurd that Refused Classification is still a thing in Australia after they introduced the adults rating for games. Seriously, how can something be above the adult rating?

To make a serious answer to that : it's not "above adult rating", it's "banned".

Even if Australia is an extreme case, I'm pretty sure many countries (most ?) have a list of subjects that are absolutely forbidden. Easy examples would be anything that promotes hate crimes, terrorism or pedophilia. Any entertainment / art form that would do that is liable to be immediately censored in many countries.

It's the age-old debate of "Freedom of Speech" vs "Do not let people promote things that are harmful to society". Each approach has some arguments for and against (hate speech is bad, but so is censorship), so there is no definitive answer. In Western countries, USA tend to rely on the first approach whereas European countries tend to use the other one.

Even if you consider depictions of crimes illegal, how does that justify all the banned content involving sexual situations between fictional consenting adults?

If you are banning depictions of crimes, there won't be much culture left. Themes of vigilantism are prevalent not only in games, but in movies, books and all forms of media. Plenty valuable works of art come from depicting fictional criminal and immoral acts. That is not even considering how the notions of crime and morality might be flawed in a society. Rape and terrorism are obviously bad, but what about the historical stances of law over the legalization of marijuana or even alcohol, as well as the illegality of homosexuality that was norm not too long ago.

Then there is the simple fact that a fictional work does not harm anyone, and anyone with a modicum of maturity, education and sanity will not commit a crime because a work of fiction says so. There are generations raised on those vigilante hero stories and that didn't make civilization collapse by self-righteous brutality.

Some works of fiction can be extremely distateful and one would be easily in their right to denounce them. But it doesn't mean they have to be banned. I personally consider Clockwork Orange one of the most revolting things I have ever read, but it is prized as an important work of art. It also doesn't harm me and it doesn't make people try the ultraviolence.

I see that there is a line, but it seems very firmly placed between reality and fiction. Threats and the incitation of real violence are a real problem that justifies some restrictions in speech. Harassment, as long as properly qualified as such and not just as a disagreement, is a problem that deserves careful examination and sometimes justifies punishment. A purely fictional work doesn't get anywhere close.